Has Donald Trump filed appeals or motions to delay payment of E. Jean Carroll's judgments through December 2025?

1. Appeals activity: from the 2nd Circuit to the Supreme Court

After a 2023 jury awarded Carroll $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation, a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that verdict; the court issued a mandate that effectively started the clock for further review ^{[1] [3]}. Trump’s legal team then sought further review, asking the full court (en banc) to rehear the case and ultimately petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take the matter in November 2025 ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

2. What appeals normally do to payment deadlines — and what the record shows here

An appeal and the filing of a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court do not automatically eliminate a judgment’s enforceability unless a court orders a stay or the parties post an appeal bond under applicable rules — steps often used to postpone collection (available sources do not mention whether a stay or supersedeas bond was in place to push payment deadlines into December 2025). Reporting documents focus on appellate briefs and the Supreme Court petition rather than on a specific motion to delay payment through December 2025 (not found in current reporting).

3. Trump’s filings and strategy as described in press accounts

News outlets report that Trump argued the trial judge made “indefensible evidentiary rulings,” and his lawyers framed the Supreme Court filing as the next step after the 2nd Circuit’s rulings and the denial of en banc rehearing earlier in 2025 ^{[5] [6]}. Multiple outlets — CNBC, CNN, BBC, The New York Times and others — note Trump asked the high court to review the $5 million civil judgment in November 2025 ^{[2] [4] [7] [8]}.

4. Disagreements in the record and competing narratives

Court documents cited in legal reporting state the appeals court found the trial judge’s evidentiary decisions were within permissible limits and affirmed the $5 million award ^[9]. Trump’s team calls those rulings erroneous and politically motivated; Trump’s spokespersons have characterized Carroll’s claims as “hoaxes” and framed the filings as part of a broader battle against “liberal lawfare” ^{[1] [6]}. Carroll’s lawyers have said the case raises no issues meriting Supreme Court review, demonstrating the polarized legal and political framings in coverage ^[10].

5. What the coverage does not say — gaps and limitations

None of the supplied articles explicitly reports that Trump filed a separate, discrete motion specifically titled or described as seeking to “delay payment through December 2025.” Reports focus on appellate rulings, the denial of en banc review, and the November 2025 Supreme Court petition; they do not describe a court‑ordered stay or a posted supersedeas bond that would formally extend the payment deadline through December 2025 (not found in current reporting). That absence leaves open whether standard procedural devices were used to defer collection while appeals proceed.

6. Why this matters for enforcement and timing

If a judgment debtor appeals but does not secure a stay or post the required bond, creditors can typically move to collect while appeals are pending; conversely, a successful stay or bond can delay collection pending further review. Available reporting documents Trump’s appeals and Supreme Court petition but do not report the procedural mechanics — stays or bonds — that would control the timing of payment into December 2025 (p1_s3; ^[1]; not found in current reporting).

7. Bottom line — what can be stated with confidence

Trump appealed the $5 million verdict through the federal appeals process and took the next step by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment in November 2025 ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Available reporting does not document a specific motion or order expressly delaying payment through December 2025; whether collection was paused by a stay or bond is not mentioned in these sources (not found in current reporting).